Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Jens1893, Sep 6, 2011.
I think what Stoops says is right - it is the wave of the future.
I hate Bevo but if everything is going to super conferences in the future I'd rather see the conference the Buffs are in be the ground breaker
A Pac 16 means were basically in the big 12 south, and playing in CA once in a while instead of 2 or 3 times a year. That would be a disaster, especially if it happens so soon before we can rebuild the program so that we can recruit on reputation alone and before we can rebuild strong ties to our west coast alumni.
F**k those guys.
Status Quo is my preference.
If put in a situation where the dominos start falling for superconferences and we have to go to 16, I like the "pod" scheduling. It does the best job among the ideas I have seen on making sure that there are annual games with the teams in our geography and regular, equal travel/home games with the teams from the other geographic areas of the conference.
If you consider the "must haves" with scheduling, it starts with the schools in the Pacific Northwest, California, Mountain, and Plains regions all getting to play all of their neighbors every season. From there, since you can't play everyone else every year without having a 15-game schedule with no non-conference games, the idea is to feel like a unified conference where everyone plays everyone as often as possible. Pod scheduling gives a home/home every 4 year period with every conference program outside a team's regional group.
Status Quo for me but I believe we will end at 16. If we do, we need it to be pods. Being in the East kills any advantage we had in joining the Pac.
I don't get how it is the future. It creates a mess and is something we saw fail years ago with even a bad conference known as the WAC. The only way I see it being a wave of the future is because it is a pipe dream that people will not stop talking about. It doesn't even look good on paper. If the SEC wants to start all of this then let them, see how it works after 3 or 4 years and then make a decision. I can't believe every conference is going to jump at this right away without the thought of it maybe being a bad idea after a year or two.
status quo for me, however I know it's going to happen sooner than later-
IF we must have 16 than make mine in PODS w/Kansas, Mizzou, OU & Pickens U as the new schools
NO TEXASS SCHOOLS !!
Why I think it makes sense as a business model is that I look at the NFL. They have been able to balance the league by having a lot of games with 2 annual games against the other 3 teams in each division (6) plus 1 game each against 2 teams from each of the other 3 divisions in the conference (6) along with 4 games each against a division from the other conference on a 4-year rotation to play everyone. By doing so and by having equal revenue sharing, they have been able to ensure geographic rivalries within divisions along with both conference and league identity.
Where I think that college football is moving is a "BCS League" with power consolidated into 4 16-team conferences.
Rather than the NFL model of 32 teams, the BCS League would have 64 teams.
We will have the 4 conferences split into 2 divisions which are then further split into 2 pods.
As discussed a ton on this board, the Pac-16 pods would result in CU having conference scheduling of 3 games against its pod and 2 games each against teams from the other 3 pods to total 9 conference games.
Where I think we're moving is that the 3 non-conference games would be 1 each against a team from the SEC, Big 10 and ACC/Big East conference to get to a 12-game schedule. Those 3 non-conference matchups would either be on a rotating basis or be chosen based on order of finish from the previous season as the NFL does (1st plays 1st, last plays last, etc.).
At the end of the season under this structure, we'd have a BCS Playoff that would start with the conference playoffs.
Much like the NFL does with its conferences, we'd have our 4 pod winners plus one wildcard per division to give us a 6-team playoff.
Highest seed from each division gets a "bye" in the 1st round while the wildcard team plays at the other pod winner in each division. Winner of that game plays at the top seed from the division. Then, the division champs play for the conference championship. Maybe these 4 conference championships are the traditional bowl games. Pac-16 Championship is the Rose Bowl, SEC is the Sugar Bowl, Big 10 Championship is the Fiesta Bowl and ACC/Big East is the Orange Bowl.
After that, we have a host site for a Football Final Four between the 4 conference champions.
If this is the vision, we'd be looking at a ton of money from a longer season and all of these meaningful playoff games replacing lesser bowl games. It would be based on an NFL model that we know works.
I'm not sure if I like it. I'm not sure if it truly reflects the thinking behind the curtain. But this is the one model I have thought of under which this talk of superconferences makes sense to me.
I can agree with you 100% on that.
I like this idea
I like status quo as well if the SEC could be counted on to keep things that way.
The thing that could really tilt the balance to our disadvantage is if they picked up UT, A&M, OU, OSU and got that much deeper, that much better. They would gain huge in marketing, TV money and become just that much more attractive to recruits. As it stands they have won the lions share of the BCS titles as it is and I think it would be bad business for everyone else if they were to get significantly stronger
Clearly the Pac-12 is in our best interest, especially right now. There's just not going to be any set up better for CU than being in the South division and playing USC and UCLA every year. If expansion has to happen, I'd rather just go to 14 and take Oklahoma and Texas. The thought of Texas joining obviously disgusts me, but the thought of Texas Tech and Oklahoma State tagging along is practically just as bad. TT and Okie Light completely water down the league while also making a joke of it from the academic standpoint. If it goes to 16, then I would hope that Kansas could be included and at least boot out one of TT/Okie Light, but that would be tough to accomplish. Also if it goes to 16, it absolutely must be in a pod format. Being in an "East" Division would be an absolute disaster for our program right now. Trying to get things turned around in that situation would be brutal. I think we'd have little, if any, more success in recruiting TX, and things would go downhill in recruiting CA.
I was just thinking this morning, why don't we try doing the pod scheduling with only 12 teams? The pods would be exactly the same (we'd be with UU, UA, ASU), we play all them, and then two from the other two pods for only 7 conference games.
The pod winner with the best conference record gets a "bye" and the other two pod winners play each other for a spot in the championship game.
We'd get more of an opportunity for OOC games (hopefully more wins, since we won't be beating each other up all the time...BOWL GAMES BABY!), still play everybody in our conference twice every four years, and in Ca every year.
9 Conference games is brutal. What do you'all think? Beneficial or no?
I'd rather keep status quo. However, if Pac 16 is eminent, I prefer UNM and SDSU along with the Okey schools. Anything in Texas should stay in Texas.
I would laugh if Texas went pac? but I would not wish that on anybody, let them rot and burn in hell.
I voted Pac 12, keep the status quo. If we do go 16, I would want the pod system. I don't want 14 and I don't want East/West where we get stuck with the OK & TX schools.
Pac12 is the best situation for CU. Several here are right that there is no need to expand, yet.
I'd prefer status quo, but that doesn't seem reasonable anymore. So, P16 with pod scheduling.
Separate names with a comma.